Hendrix v. State, 450 S.W.3d 692

Hendrix, age 21+, was charged and convicted in Faulkner County of internet stalking of a child under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-306 for using Fetlife/Yahoo to arrange a meeting to engage in sexual acts with an alleged mother and her children.
Undercover investigator Shannon Cook posed as a 30-year-old mother (“playful mom”) with children ages 10 and 8; Hendrix allegedly described explicit sexual acts and arranged to meet at a McDonald’s, where he was arrested.
Forensics recovered deleted Fetlife messages and other electronic communications tying Hendrix to the account and the planned meeting.
At the close of the State’s case Hendrix moved for dismissal for insufficiency of the evidence; the court denied the motion. He renewed the motion at the close of all evidence without specifying grounds; it was denied again.
In closing defense counsel specifically argued Hendrix did not communicate with anyone he believed to be 15 or younger — an essential statutory element. The court found Hendrix guilty and sentenced him to ten years. Hendrix appealed, arguing the State failed to prove an essential element.
The State argued the insufficiency issue was not preserved on appeal because Hendrix’s dismissal motions lacked the specificity required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved the statutory element that Hendrix communicated with a person he believed to be 15 or younger	Hendrix: State failed to prove he communicated with or believed he was communicating with a child 15 or younger	State: Evidence (including request to speak to the daughter and explicit plans) satisfied the element	Not reached on merits — conviction affirmed because issue not preserved under Rule 33.1
Whether Hendrix preserved his sufficiency challenge for appellate review under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1	Hendrix: Specificity requirement is to allow reopening of the State’s case; he raised the specific element in closing so issue is preserved	State: Rule 33.1 requires specificity in the dismissal motion (not merely in closing); defense failed to specify the missing element at the required time	Held: Issue not preserved — dismissal motions lacked the specificity required by Rule 33.1; closing argument does not cure the deficiency

Etoch v. State, 343 Ark. 361 (Ark. 2001) (Rule 33.1 is strictly construed)
Thomas v. State, 315 Ark. 504 (Ark. 1994) (supporting principle for strict construction of Rule 33.1)
McClina v. State, 354 Ark. 384 (Ark. 2003) (closing argument cannot substitute for a proper dismissal motion in a nonjury trial)